Anita Makri argues that the form of science communicated in popular media leaves the public vulnerable to false certainty.
What is truth? How do we find it and does it still carry weight in public debate? Given recent political events, these are important and urgent questions. But of the two industries I work in that are concerned with truth — science and journalism — only the latter has seriously engaged and looked for answers. Scientists need to catch up, or they risk further marginalization in a society that is increasingly weighing evidence and making decisions without them.
[...] What's overlooked by many is how science is losing its relevance as a source of truth. To reclaim this relevance, scientists, communicators, institutions and funders must work to change the way that socially relevant science is presented to the public. This is not about better media training for researchers. It demands a rethink about the kind of science that we want to communicate to broader society. This message may sound familiar but the new focus on post-truth shows there is now a tangible danger that must be addressed.
[...] If the public is better equipped to navigate this science, it would restore trust and improve understanding of different verdicts, and perhaps help people to see through some of the fake news that circulates on scientific matters.
http://www.nature.com/news/give-the-public-the-tools-to-trust-scientists-1.21307
What do you think, will the general public trust these tools, if available ?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:44PM
I agree. From TFA:
I would argue that it is the misrepresentation of science by journalists that is the root cause of the problem.
Journalists misrepresent science in multiple ways, which include: suggesting that a theory is more accepted within the scientific community than it really is, accepting the results of studies by interested parties (for example, studies that are sponsored by large companies or industries), promoting information from non-scientists (for example "nutrition" advice that is unsupported by any experimental results) and finally, the old "balanced reporting", where the other side are a bunch of kooks (or crooks).
But the author, as a journalist, doesn't want to look in a mirror.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory